Sir Hamilton Freer-Smith’s Committee set up by the Government of the UK had given its report on labour reforms and factory law. Subsequently, Indian Factory Labour Commission was set up under the Presidentship of W.T. Morrison of which T. M. Nair was also a member. That committee had to examine the suggestions of the Freer-Smith’s Committee too.

Courtesy: M. Anees Chrishti

T. M. Nair had given his Dissent Note when the Report had been given by the Committee to the Government of India, on 17.12.1906. His Dissent Note condemned the plight of workers in factories and recommended the reduction of hours of work and other welfare measures.

And, lo and behold, the British Government appreciated his sincere report and it was the contents of his Dissent Note which became the basis of the Factories Act, 1911. Some of his suggestions which had not been accepted in 1911 had been accepted later in 1922 and made law.

Gilbert Slater in his book, “The Dravidian Element in Indian Culture”, published in 1924, says thus, in Pages 138 and 139 of his book:

2017:

The present day politicians in power proclaim that they are bringing out this Labour Code on Social Security as per the recommendations of the Second Labour Commission. But, the fact is that the motive of that Commission was sinister and that Commission did not consist of the representatives of many trade unions of all India level. The broad spectrum of views of all the trade unions could not therefore be represented in the Commission.

That Dissent Note submitted very honestly by the Member Mr. C.K. Saji Narayanan on 21.05.2002, testify to the fact that it was only he who acted in the interest of working population.

But, the politicians in power do not care to consider the issues raised by them.

The traditionally selfish Indian society does not want to spare time to insist on the powers-that-be to explain its stand on the said Dissent Note and enlighten itself about the impending dangers it would face if and when the proposed Labour Code on Social Security comes into force.

Let the rulers be made accountable for the misadventure they rush into that would destabilise the health-care structure of the entire nation.

“The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed …… to exploit, ……. its citizens”

– Leo Tolstoy

==============================================

It was the NDA government which during the period of Mr. Sahib Singh Verma as the Minister for Labour from 2002 to 2004, started setting up numerous Sub-Regional Offices around the nation, including the bizarre one for Benares with less than 1000 insured persons.

It is the same NDA government now which is closing down the Sub-Regional Offices.

It was the NDA government with the same Mr. Sahib Singh Verma, as the Labour Miniser, which caused creating more and more posts of SMCs and SSMCs everywhere. It is the same NDA government which abolishes those posts now, in spite of the facts that many SMCs are doing commendable job.

But, this time, the operation-closure of SROs and the Offices of the SMCs is part of the grand design to dismantle the structure of social security organisations under public control, to facilitate the greedy ultra-rich of India to find new business avenues to make crores and crores for themselves at the cost of the poor working class.

It is strange that the Indian politicians so willingly allow themselves to be used by these business-interests to work against the 99% people of the nation. The Oxfam in its report titled ‘An economy for the 99 per cent’, suggested that “it is time to build a human economy that benefits everyone, not just the privileged few”. But, the politicians in power would not listen. Because, all round development of the nation does not benefit the politicians who happen to be in power. Nor would a public sector organisation that caters to the social security needs of the people pay hefty donation to the political party in power, while private organisations reward them in numerous ways.

1% wants to corner 80% of the wealth

As of 2015, 1% of the population of India owned 53% of the country’s wealth, as per the report of Credit Suisse (Times of India 14.10.2015).

In 2017

As of 2017, the richest 1% owned 58% total wealth in India (The Hindu 16.01.2017), as per the report of the Oxfam.

Now, by dismantling the public-sector social security organisations, the abovesaid 1% could corner another 25% of the nation’s resources. All, in democracy and in the name of democracy.

While the UPA government saw the resources of the ESIC being frittered away by setting up medical education institutions in a reckless manner, the NDA had, not only joined hands in further exploitation of the ESIC by setting up more medical institutions, but had chosen from 28.02.2015 onwards to further please the ever-greedy ultra-rich by winding up the social security system of the nation, through the Labour Code on Social Security and Welfare.

Democracy means Rule by Debate. But, the manner in which the Indian politicians willingly allow themselves to be manipulated by and for the ultra-rich and bring up a Labour Code by bypassing so many time-tested methods of law-making, will land the nation in misery forever.

ILO is aware of pitfalls but hesitates to call a spade a spade

As for the role of the ILO in the preparation of the said Labour Code on Social Security and Welfare, the less said the better. The authorities of the ILO had not endorsed any of the proposal of the Labour Code. They just gave their guidelines and left the matter at that. The same was the case with the ISSA too. But, the central bureaucrats project it as a completion of the required formality to consult the ILO and ISSA. But, the same ILO, which has, now, lost its opportunity to protect the Indian Labour, from the ill-effects of the proposed Labour Code on Social Security and Welfare, did not hesitate to criticise India in in November 2010, for its notorious informal labour practices. “India has performed poorly in providing social security protection to its people until recently with ‘very high vulnerability’ to poverty and informal labour practices in the world, according to a report released by the International Labour Office (ILO) today” (Times of India – 16.11.2010). In its first comprehensive ‘World Social Security Report’, the ILO has suggested that India has not done enough in the arena of social security protection, which is reckoned as the “human face of globalisation, in line with its fiscal status”. But, when there is opportunity at hand for the ILO to prevent the calamity in the arena of social security in India, the ILO is wishy-washy in its stand. Pity the ILO !

In regard to the importance of the ILO, the Course material PGDLL of Vardhman University, says, “If the ILO Conventions are seen in the general spectrum of labour conditions, one can imagine the great value and influence they have in moulding the course of social and economic philosophy of the world. The world without their influence and continuance may be a world of perpetual competition, exploitation, inequality and injustice resulting in wars and confrontations. Judged in this perspective, it would be highly relevant to assess the impact of the ILO standards on Indian Labour legislation. This impact can be seen in three phase, namely, labour, legislation in India before the ILO. Labour legislation in India from 1919 to 1947 and labour legislation in India after 1947.” But, the ILO has betrayed the trust of the labour in it, 70 years later in 2017, by its choice to play an ineffective role in the preparation of Labour Code on Social Security and Welfare.

The coterie of the rich and powerful

It is, ultimately, the cleverness of the persons that carries the day. The greedy rich, the servile politicians, the sheepish ILO and the unfaithful bureaucrats joined hands together to work against the poor. What else would explain the daring manner in which the existing time-tested benefits given to the working population are attempted to be reduced by the ruling class even for the organised labour?

The poor of the nation are protected neither by the bureaucrats who willingly carry out the dishonest orders of their political superiors nor by the employees’ representatives who occupy the seats in the supreme body of the ESI Corporation as Members. As for the role of these members of the ESIC, no one other than Mr. Kali Ghose understood the issues and defended the labour right from the beginning till his end. He was the only member in the supreme body of the organisation, who spoke for the poor sincerely.

It is now left to the commoners to prevent this Labour-Code from being made law. It is the duty of the thinkers among them to stand up and expose the misdeeds of the rulers and stop the nation from being looted by the ugly ultra-rich more and more, through the proposed Labour Code on Social Security! Let them speak up!!

Perform your role and avoid doble-penalty !

A citation from Quoran is worth-quoting in the context:

There was a Mullah in a village. He was a very honest and pious man just doing his work in the mosque. The villagers had been indulging in various sinful activities, like theft, adulteration, cheating, adultery, etc., But, the Mullah who was aware of the entire on goings did not come forward to inform the villagers of their folly. He did not make any efforts to reform them. He thought that none would listen to him. He, however, guarded himself not to commit any such sinful activity.

Soon, there was flood. It washed away the entire village. It took away the Mullah too. All of them appeared before God. God punished everybody according to the nature of his or her crime. When Mullah presented himself last, he was imposed with double-penalty. Mullah pleaded that he had not committed any sin and that he had been doing only the work for God in the mosque. God did not agree. It was the duty of the Mullah to inform the villagers of their wrongs. The villagers were not aware of the extent and consequence of their sin. To some extent they were ignorant too. But the Mullah was an informed man. He was, therefore, duty-bound to inform the others. Whether the others would listen to him or not was a different issue. Mullah had to perform his duty of informing the people but he had not done so. He had, in fact, not made any efforts in that direction. God said that the Mullah, therefore, deserved double penalty. “When a sin is committed before an individual or a group and they do not prevent it, in spite of having the capability, then Allah inflicts a severe punishment on them…” (Virtues of Tabligh — Chapter II – Sayings of the Prophet).

Thus, Islam shows that even a priest cannot go to heaven unless he discharges his inherent duty when on earth. Generally, no one would observe the religious formalities more punctually and more systematically than the priest. Yet, the doors to heaven do not open to those who observe only those formalities and do not perform their duties towards humanity.

The thinkers who know the ill-effects of the ill-intentioned Labour Code on Social Security & Welfare should come out of their slumber and discharge their duty to inform the people about the impending danger posed to the nation by the said Code. That is the only way they can avoid double-penalty later.

It is proposed to file a Writ Petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras against the Draft Bill on Labour Code on Social Security & Welfare.

There had been conspiracy by the ravenously-greedy vested interests to dismantle the established social security schemes of the nation and make money by privatising social security.

They do not listen to reason. They do not answer questions. They hide many facts. There is, therefore, no option for the common man to knock at the doors of Courts for justice. Action is under way.

The following is the Synopsis of the case.

Suggestions are welcome:

====================================================

Respondent =-1 is the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and the Respondent-2 is the Director General of the ESI Corporation.

==========================

Synopsis

==========================

It is submitted that the ESI Act is intended to provide ‘Public Assistance’ to the working population and thereby advancing the purpose of Art. 41 and 42 of the Constitution of India duly monitored by the International Labour Organisation as per their international parameters. The ESI Act provides, for the present, security-net to the working population in the factories and the industrial and commercial establishments in the organised sector and its long-term goal, as spelt out in Sec. 1 (5) of the Act, is to extend the security-net not only to all the factories but also to all kinds of establishments including those which are agricultural or otherwise.

The quantum of benefits provided by the ESI Act, at present, in the event of Sickness, Employment Injuries of various kinds and Fatal Accidents ensure a decent and dignified lifestyle for the insured persons and their dependants. Yet, the ESI Act is not a compulsory provision as it does have provisions for exemption of various classes of factories, establishments and employees, if the employers provide to their employees, benefits which are ‘substantially similar’ or ‘superior’ to the ones provided under the ESI Act. But, the fact is that none of the employers in private sector could, so far, match the benefits provided under the ESI Act and claim exemption in a legitimate manner. Even the newspaper, The Hindu, had editorially conceded on 01.01.2005, that “The package (of benefits provided by the ESIC) can rarely be matched by private employers on their own because of the heavy costs involved – not to mention the disinclination among employers, with honorable exceptions, to operate health care systems for their workforce”.

Art. 41 of the Constitution of India says that “The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right …. to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want”. The Constitution thus, gives direction to the State that in cases of Sickness, disablement and in other cases of undeserved want, the State is to provide “public assistance”. The ESI Corporation was established for fulfilling this Constitutional mandate. The State, the Government of India, cannot, therefore, make provisions for “private assistance” and absolve itself of its Constitutional responsibility. But, the Respondents are hell-bent on doing exactly the same.

They have, in the guise of taking policy decision, brought out a Draft Labour Code on Social Security & Welfare, to arbitrarily reduce, very drastically, the benefits payable to the employees. And, in order not to make the working population know about their mala fide intention to deny or reduce the benefits already available to them, the Respondents have brought out the Draft Labour Code on Social Security & Welfare, by combining 15 enactments together, without explaining the objects and reasons and without making the people know about the provisions which are attempted to be dispensed with. The intention of the Respondents is to aid, on the sly, the private players enter the field of insurance in industry-related contingencies and make profit, by diluting the benefit provisions of the ESI Act which stood the test of time for over six decades.

Moreover, the Respondents make the provisions of accountability of the private players very lose and nebulous. The entire social security scenario the nation is in jeopardy, because of the dubious manner in which the Respondents have been functioning to bring out this impugned code, as could be seen from their replies and non-response to various applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005.. People have been left wth no information pertaining to these essential aspects of the Code and have been left to wonder whether they would be benefitted or affected by the new Code.

The Draft Code is not an all-inclusive document. There are so many areas deliberately left to remain grey to facilitate non-accountability of the private players. Defects of various kinds in the Bill show unseemly hurry on the part of the authorities to destabilise the present social security structure and bring in something unknown even to the Respondents themselves.

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Respondents pertaining to the Draft Labour Code on Social Security & Welfare, circulated by the Respondent-1 in Circular No. Z-13025/13 / 12015 – LRC dated 16.03.2017 and quash the same and, consequently, issue direction to the Respondents to take further action to prepare and put in public domain a comprehensive Bill covering all aspects of the subject-matter on Social Security & Welfare, including the proposed Schemes, Rules (that would be framed by the Government) and the tentative Regulations (that would be framed by the National Council) with reference to the Schemes for Social Security mentioned in 24 of the said draft Code and call for the comments of the Stakeholders / Public afresh and to grant interim injunction restraining the Respondents from taking further action to place the present Draft Labour Code on Social Security & Welfare, circulated by the Respondent-1 in Circular No. Z-13025/13 / 12015 – LRC dated 16.03.2017 before the Parliament pending disposal of the present Writ Petition and to pass further or other orders as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

In the context of a few unscrupulous bureaucrats of the Ministry of Labour venturing to bring out a Labour Code on Social Security & Welfare, in connivance and collaboration with power brokers, it is appropriate to examine the proceedings of the 21st World Congress 2017 that meets at present in Singapore from 3 to 6 September 2017.

It is all the more necessary because the Indian bureaucrats have gone to the extent of projecting their Code having been, in effect, approved by the ILO and the ISSA. This is a clear mischief for which they must be made accountable before the court of law.

Mr. Guy Rider, the Director General of the ILO has said that the failure of various nations to adequately invest in health of the workers, has affected the economy and the impact is equal to the total GDP of the poorest 130 countries in the world.

“The global economic impact of the failure to adequately invest in occupational safety and health is roughly equal to the total GDP of the poorest 130 countries in the world,” International Labour Organization (ILO) Director-General Guy Ryder told nearly 3,500 participants during the opening ceremony at the XXI World Congress on Safety and Health at Work , in Singapore on 3 September.

The new global estimates on work-related illnesses and injuries represent 3.94 per cent of global GDP per year, or 2.99 trillion US dollars. In human lives that means 2.78 million workers continue to die each year from work-related injuries and illnesses – 2.4 million of these deaths can be attributed to work-related diseases alone. The figures announced today were developed by Finland, Singapore, the EU and the International Commission on Occupational Health, with the support of ILO.

The new figures point to a growing body of evidence demonstrating the global cost of failing to adequately address existing and emerging occupational safety and health (OSH) concerns, and to the importance of OSH to sustainable development. “Clearly there is a recognition that certain OSH challenges are global challenges that require global solutions,” said Ryder.

Mr Ryder noted ILO’s readiness to engage in the development of a global coalition with key partners in meeting these challenges, as proposed by Finnish Minister of Labour Pirkko Mattila, in a forum on the future of work.

As a co-organizer of the 2017 World Congress on Safety and Health at Work, ILO is addressing key challenges for the future of work and the implications for the safety and health of workers. During the four-day Congress the ILO will participate in symposia and technical sessions on the need for reliable OSH data, improving occupational safety and health in global supply chains, creating mechanisms for the exchange of OSH data, knowledge and expertise globally, and fostering proactive occupational safety and health compliance strategies at national level. Engagement of youth around the world will be key to addressing these challenges.

“How the future of work is forged will, of course, have the greatest impact on this and the next generation and they must have a voice in the process including on OSH,” said Ryder in addressing Congress participants.

Youth and OSH is a key theme at the XXI World Congress and central to ILO’s flagship Occupational Safety and Health-Global Action for Prevention Programme. “Forty million youth are entering the labour market this year and they are the best-educated generation the world has ever seen. We must take advantage of this demographic dividend and unleash the potential and creativity of these young people,” said the head of the ILO.

As part of ILO’s SafeYouth@Work project , some 125 Youth Champions from more than 29 countries are participating in a Youth Congress parallel to the World Congress. The SafeYouth@Work Congress seeks to build a corps of Youth Champions on OSH to address the significant workplace safety and health challenges faced by young workers. The Youth Congress will conclude with the development of prototype models for targeted tripartite efforts at country and regional level, for improving working conditions for young people.

The XXI World Congress, being held 2-6 September, is a tri-annual event jointly organized by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the International Social Security Association (ISSA), and is hosted this year by the Singapore Ministry of Manpower.

(Traditional literature permitted historical fictions both as stories or plays. But, the modern literature permits stories and plays based on contemporary history. The present one is an imaginary play based on contemporary history with the intention of clearing many a doubt on the part of various persons working in various organisations where the DACP is implemented).

Act I : Scene I

Scene: Office of a busy lawyer at 7’O clock in the morning.
Cast: Mr. A, Mr. B, Mr. C and Ms. D, working as Assistant Professors in an ESIC PGMSR and a lawyer.

(The lawyer is going through the sheaf of papers presented by the Assistant Professors. Sullen silence prevails after a long discussion. The lawyer breaks the ice.)

Lawyer: (Placing the papers on his table) Yes. I went through your papers last night. Your grievance is genuine. I shall take up your case. My fee is about twenty per cent of your estimated arrears. You must know that I always charge very reasonably.

(The Assistant Professors are shocked and have been rendered speechless for a moment. Dr. A then recovers from the jolt first.)

Dr. A: Sir, the fee seems to be very huge.

Lawyer: Huge? You know what huge means? Conduct a survey. You will know yourself. My charge is very moderate. That is what I feel.

Dr. A: OK Sir, we have to discuss the issue among ourselves and other colleagues. Let us come back in a few minutes.

Lawyer: Yeah, that is fair. (The Assistant Professors leave the room. When they are about to be out of sight, the Lawyer shouts). Hello, keep in view the fact that I have not charged you the Consultation Fee. If you decide on engaging me, the consultation is free. (Ms. D, who leaves last nods her head).

Act I Scene II.

Scene: Garden in front of the office of the lawyer.
Cast: All the four Assistant Professors.

(The Assistant Professors discuss in a low hush-hush voice among themselves)

Dr. A: Friends, the lawyer wants 20% of our estimated arrears. Is it not a huge fee? Can we afford it?

Dr. B: It is huge, indeed. But, how will he calculate our arrears? We ourselves do not know.

Dr. C: Did you hear him right. He did not say 20%. He said that his fee was “about” 20 %. It seems he would make some calculation, arrive at an imaginary figure and ask us to pay it in advance.

Dr. B: Why not we go and meet some other lawyer who would charge less?

Dr. D: Of course, there are some lawyers who do it for free too.

Dr. C: But, they are not useful to us.

(Mr. A talks to some of his colleagues over mobile. Folds it up and looks at his friends)

Dr. A: Our friends say that we may engage this lawyer himself. Shall we move in?

(They move inside the chamber of the lawyer)

Act II: Scene I

Scene: Office of the lawyer.
Cast: The Assistant Professors and the lawyer.

Dr. A: Yes sir ! We agree to your terms.

(They hand over a wad of currency notes to the lawyer. He keeps the currency bundle in his drawer, feels invigorated, sits up in his chair and looks at them, cheerfully beaming with energy)

Lawyer: Yes, let us go ahead ! Let us analyse the case. You are all working in the ESIC Medical College as Assistant Professors from the year 2011 onwards, and some of you from 2013 onwards.

At the time of inviting applications for the post of the Assistant Professor, the ESIC had, in Para B (v) of its advertisement dated 05.11.2012, held out a categorical, clear and unambiguous promise that the “promotional avenues in the Department are available under DACP guidelines of the Government of India”.

As per Para 2. B of the DACP guidelines of the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, O.M. F.No. A-45012/2/2008-CHS. V dated 29.10.2008, the first benefit of DACP would be given to those in the Teaching Sub Cadre who have completed two years of regular service in the Grade pay of Rs. 6600 in PB-3.

Accordingly, you should have been promoted as Associate Professors in the pay band of Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600, in the years 2013 and 2015 respectively, after completion of two years of regular service as Assistant Professor. But, the ESiC has not given that benefit of Assured Career Progression till date. Right?

Dr. A: Yes sir.

Lawyer: You have given representations also individually seeking such promotion to the post of Associate Professor. Yet, there is no positive result yet. Right?

Dr. A: Yes sir.

Lawyer: The position of law on the subject is that as per Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the existing ESI Act, 1948, “The method of recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline and other conditions of service of the members of the staff of the Corporation shall be such as may be specified in the regulations made by the Corporation in accordance with the rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay”. Consequently, it is mandatory on the part of the ESIC to enforce in the ESI Corporation, the orders of the Central Government which are applicable to the officers of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay. The rules and orders pertaining to the salary and allowances, method of recruitment and other conditions of service of the employees become applicable to the employees of the ESI Corporation also automatically, by virtue of the aforesaid Sec. 17(2)(a). Right?

Dr. A: Yes sir.

Lawyer: The Proviso to the said Sec. 17 (2) (a) mandates that “where the Corporation is of the opinion that it is necessary to make a departure from the said rules or orders in respect of any of the matters aforesaid, it shall obtain the prior approval of the Central Government”. If at all the ESIC wants to deviate from the directions given in those Rules and Orders of the Government of India, it must obtain the prior approval of the Government, explaining proper reasons which are not arbitrary.

Dr. A: Yes sir.

Lawyer: The Administration says now that the Recruitment Regulations for the Medical Teaching Faculty Posts which had been amended and brought into force w.e.f. 03.07.2015 specified that for promotion to the post of Associate Professor one should have put in five years of regular service in the feeder cadre of Assistant Professor. Citing this, they convince you that you could not be promoted as Associate Professor until you complete five years of service as Assistant Professor. Yes?

Dr. A: Yes sir.

Lawyer: What was the provision in the Recruitment Regulations which were in force when the Advertisement was given on 05.11.2012?

Dr. A: Sir, there existed another set of Recruitment Regulations dated 02.05.2009 for the Medical Teaching Faculty Posts, when the authorities invited applications for the post of Assistant Professor on 05.11.2012. Those Recruitment Regulations provided for time-bound promotion for Assistant Professors to the post of Associate Professors after they put in four years of regular service as Assistant Professors.

Lawyer: But, now you know that the ESIC authorities advertised for the post of Assistant Professors on 05.11.2012 promising time bound promotion to the post of Associate Professor after two years of regular service, knowing full well that the then existing Recruitment Regulations prescribed four years of regular service as the Essential Qualification for promotion to that cadre. Okay?

Dr. A: Yes, sir.

Lawyer: What does it imply? It implies that the officials who dealt with the issues at that time, knew the concept clearly. The officials who deal with the issue now do not understand the concept and make a mess of it.

Dr. A: How?

Lawyer: yes. The fact is the officials who deal with the issue now have, simply, forgotten the fact that the ACPS (Assured Career Progression Scheme), MACPS (Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme) and DACPS (Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme) are there only to supplement and improve upon the already existing Recruitment Rules / Recruitment Regulations. The Recruitment Regulations, which provide only for the normal promotional avenues, cannot be invoked to deny and supplant the DACPS or ACPS or MACPS. So, the contents of the MOH&FW order dated 29.10.2008 on DACPS would prevail over the said Recruitment Regulations. But, the officials in the Hqrs. are ignorant of these rudimentary facts.

Dr. A: I see.

Lawyer: So, it is unlawful for the authorities to cite the Recruitment Regulations (either the present one dated 03.07.2015 or the earlier one dated 02.05.2009) to deny the benefit of DACP for which you became entitled to on completion of two years of regular service as Assistant Professor.

Dr. A: Yes.

Lawyer: Moreover, the DACPS benefit is not linked to vacancies but is akin to time-bound promotion, which has to be given with retrospective effect too, if there had been delay in convening the meetings of the DPCs / Review Committees under the DACP Scheme. The authorities cannot, therefore, hold out the later-day Recruitment Regulations of 03.07.2015 to deny the benefit that accrued to all of you already on 22.03.2015 FN. This is only an additional argument, because the RRs do not have the effect of supplanting the DACP guidelines of the Government of India.

Dr. A: I find substance in your argument.

Lawyer: We must stress on the fact that the authorities had offered through their advertisement dated 05.11.2012, to implement the DACP guidelines in respect those who opt for service in the ESIC Medical Colleges, in spite of their being aware of the contents of those Recruitment Regulations dated 02.05.2009 which were in force as on 05.11.2012.

Dr. A: Yes sir.

Lawyer: Another additional point is that there is no reason for the authorities to deny DACP benefits to those who completed two years of regular service even before the later amendment came into force on 03.07.2015. Seen in the light of this fact, the Speaking Order issued by the Hqrs. in C-18/11/7/16- Med VI dated 03.07.2017 is patently incorrect.

Dr. A: Is it?

Lawyer: Yes. I do not know whether you have seen it. It is a case of Assistant Professors (Dental) in the ESIC Dental College. As per the DACP guidelines for Assistant Professors (Dental), promotion will have to be made without linkage to vacancies, for those who have completed two years of regular service in that cadre. “Other conditions for effecting promotion will be governed by the respective Recruitment Rules as amended from time to time and DOPT instruction in this regard”. The Assistant Professors (Dental) in that case had joined in the year 2011. They had completed two years of service in the year 2013. They had become entitled to the DACP in the year 2013 itself. If the DPC had met in the year 2013 they would have got their benefit under the DACP. But, there had been delay and the RRs had later been amended on 23.12.2014. This RR which came into force on 23.12.2014 cannot deny the benefit that accrued to the Assistant Professors (Dental) in the year 2013, which can be and has to be given with retrospective effect, as the DACP, ACP, MACP are not linked to vacancies. This is only an Assured career progression and not a vacancy-based promotion, which alone can have prospective effect from or after the date of DPC. The speaking order dated 03.072017 is clearly wrong.

Dr. A: I see your point.

Lawyer: There is a possibility that similar unlawful and unjustifiable stand would be taken in your cases also. You have to pre-empt it. Or you must complain against the officials of the Hqrs. Office who misguide the Medical Commissioner to issue such a patently wrong order.

Dr. A: I agree.

Lawyer: Moreover, there is the theory of Promissory Estoppel. The promise made by the authorities in their advertisement dated 05.11.2012 falls very clearly within the definition of the term ‘Promissory Estoppel’. The authorities are, by law, prevented from breaking it, especially when you had acted upon that promise. The promise given by the authorities on 05.11.2012 was an enforceable promise, a clear and definite one at that. There is nothing on record to show that the promise was given only with the intention of breaking it later.

Dr. A: I understand.

Lawyer: That promise made by the authorities on 05.11.2012 prevents them from going back on it, especially after the Applicant had acted on it. It had been made with intent to make you to rely upon that promise. You had not only relied upon it but acted upon it too for a continuous period of two years. You had (i) acted on that promise held out on 05.11.2012, (ii) applied for the post of Assistant Professor, (iii) joined the services of the institute and (iv) rendered service for two years hoping all along that the authorities would fulfil their promise on completion of two years’ service. The authorities ought, therefore, to fulfil that promise. They are estopped from reneging from their earlier stand as communicated, on 05.11.2012, to you as one of the terms and conditions of appointment.

Dr. A: When this being the position of law, how come they issued an order like the one dated 03.07.2017 in the case of Assistant Professors (Dental)?

Lawyer: That was a clear case of negligence on the part of the officials who processed the case. A copy of the filenoting, if obtained under the RTI Act, would show who had misled the Medical Commissioner thus. Depending upon the material evidence available thus, you can proceed against the concerned officials under Sec. 24 of the IPC too, after obtaining permission from the Director General to prosecute them for having caused wrongful loss to you.

Dr. A. Why are they not understanding the concept of DACP then?

Lawyer: It is just unwillingness to read the instructions. The orders of the Central Government on the DACPS (just like the ACP and MACP) are intended to improve upon the normal promotional avenues contemplated under the Recruitment Regulations notified in the Gazette for each cadre. This has been repeatedly made clear by the DOPT also right from the year 1999, when the ACP was introduced. The order dated 29.10.2008 cannot, therefore, be refused to be enforced in the ESI Corporation by citing the later day Regulations of 03.07.2015.

Dr. A: Are we entitled to the benefits available to those who are under the CHS?

Lawyer: Yes, of course. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and the Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research. Puducherry (JIPMER) are also Central Autonomous Bodies like the ESI Corporation. The orders dated 29.10.2008 of the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India regarding DACPS have already been enforced in those Central Autonomous Bodies. There is, therefore, no justification in denying the benefit to the teaching faculty in the Medical institutions of the ESIC, when Sec. 17(2) (a) of the Act mandates such benefit to be conferred on them.

Moreover, the Principal Bench of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi has in the case involving the conditions of service of the Pharmacists of the ESIC, ruled that the ESIC “cannot claim immunity from creating proper cadre structure”, especially when various State Governments and the AIIMS have a well-defined cadre structure. Hon’ble Principal Bench made such an observation in the light of the fact that the “Pharmacy Council of India, the Apex Statutory Body to regulate the Pharmacy in the country has itself recommended that every health delivery agencies should have a well-defined cadre structure for their Pharmacists”. (Udhay Veer Singh Vs. ESIC – 06.05.2015). The same ratio is applicable to the teaching faculty also in the ESIC, whose cadre structure has all along been on the lines of the structure in the CHS. The authorities are, therefore, required to confer the benefit of DACPS on the teaching faculty of the ESIC Medical institutions, as per the orders of the Department of Health & Family Welfare dated 29.10.2008.

Dr. A: I see.

Lawyer: Besides, as per Sec. 17 (2) (a) the pay and allowances and other conditions of service of the employees of the ESI Corporation are to be in accordance with the rules and orders applicable to the corresponding category of central government employees. Any denial of the benefit of the orders dated 29.10.2008 of the Department of Health & Family Welfare on the DACPS would be in clear violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act, 1948, which is not permissible in law.

To sum up, you are all entitled to the benefit of Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme and get promoted to the post of Associate Professor in the pay band of Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600 with effect from the date succeeding the day on which you had completed two years of regular service in the cadre of Assistant Professor in the ESIC PGIMSR. (At this moment, the ten-years old daughter of the Lawyer enters into the room. The lawyer looks at the wall clock. It is 7.45 AM. Time for him to go to a nearby town for a family function for which his wife has left already. His ten-years old daughter would not go with mother. She wants to accompany her indulgent father and has, therefore, entered into the office of the lawyer to remind him. The lawyer rises up. The doctors understand that their appointment is over)

Act III Scene I

Scene: Near the exit gate of the house of the lawyer.
Cast: The Assistant Professors and the lawyer and his daughter.

(When the Assistant Professors are walking across the garden in front of the house of the lawyer, the car of the lawyer overtakes them. Suddenly, Mr. C, waves at the car to stop it. The car stops near them and the lawyer peeps out with an inquiring glance.)

Dr. C: Sir, when we pay, will you give receipt so that we could account for it before our friends?

Lawyer: Yes, of course ! And, you will have to pay 20% more for that.

(All the Assistant Professors are gasping in unison)

Lawyer: Hey, What happened? Shocked? No. Be happy! I haven’t charged 20% on that 20%, you know. I am, always, reasonable. Charging only 20 instead of 30%. (The Lawyer drives the car on. But, the car stops at a distance. He peeps out of the car and shouts at the Assistant Professors there). Hey, GST, GST ! Keep that in view too !!

(The car glides away and disappears at a distance. The shell-shocked doctors take some time to recover.)

Dr. Ms. D: I didn’t know, yaar! Had I known, I would also have gone for advocacy.

Act III Scene II.

Scene: A highway.
Cast: The lawyer and his daughter in their car.

No traffic rush is there on the highway. Only a few vehicles in sight sporadically. The Lawyer drives the car at slow speed. He switches off the AC and downs the window facilitating his daughter enjoy the cool morning breeze. His daughter prefers travelling in open car, always.

ACPS and DACP are different from normal promotions. It is for the normal vacany-based promotions or normal time-bound promotions, the provisions of the RRs have to be invoked and the condition regarding the period of residency mentioned in the RRs required to be fulfilled. Introduction of ACP or DACP schemes was in addition to the avenues of promotion prescribed in the RRs. These schemes are not to affect normal promotional avenue. While elaborating these facts pertaining to the ACP in its O. M. dated 09.08.1999, the DOPT had said, “The Fifth Central Pay Commission in paragraph 52.15 of its Report has also separately recommended a “Dynamic Assured Career Progression Mechanism” for different streams of doctors. It has been decided that the said recommendation may be considered separately by the administrative Ministry concerned in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training and the Department of Expenditure.” The Press Information Bureau of the Government of India has also said, in its bulletin dated 07.08.2013,

“Central Health Service (CHS) Officers in Central Government are governed by the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme, which was implemented by Government of India based on the recommendations of Vth Central Pay Commission providing promotion to the CHS officers without linkage to vacancies upto the level of Chief Medical Officer – Non-Functional Selection Grade (CMO-NFSG)/ Specialist Grade I/ Professor w.e.f. 5.4.2002. The benefit of promotion under DACP Scheme was extended to Dental Officers under Ministry of Health and Family Welfare without linkage to vacancies upto the level of Staff Surgeon (Dental) (NFSG)/ Professor/ Maxillofacial Surgeon w.e.f. 25.8.2006.

Based on the acceptance of VIth Central Pay Commission’s the Government of India further extended the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme upto the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level without linkage to vacancies in respect of Medical and Dental Doctors in the Central Government, whether belonging to Organised Service or holding isolated posts w.e.f. 29.10.2008 .All Ministries/ Departments of the Central Government are required to implement the DACP Scheme accordingly in respect of Medical/ Dental Doctors under their control. This benefit of promotion upto the level of SAG without linkage to vacancies under DACP Scheme was also extended to the officers of various sub-cadres of Central Health Service (CHS) and Dental Doctors under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare w.e.f. 29.10.2008.” (http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=98744)

The lawyer is lost in thoughts: “Unless the DACP Mechanism has been done away with, the authorities cannot deny the Assured Career Progression to his clients. They knew that and that was why they made this promise in the advertisement and in the offer of appointment to his clients in the year 2012. They knew that the earlier RR of 2009 had specified four years as the period of residency. And, yet, if the promise of DACP had been made in the year 2012, it implies that the Administration was aware of the fact that the DACP was an additional feature taking the promotional avenues beyond the provisions of the RRs”. The lawyer is not able to comprehend how the officers dealing with the case, at present, arrived at a different and strange conclusion that the RRs amended in 2014 would supersede the provisions of the DACP. How did they do it? How did they issue an order like the one dated 03.07.1017 in the case of Assistant Professors (Dental)? The lawyer is puzzled.

The chain of thoughts of the lawyer gets disrupted by his daughter who prods him to look at the parrots sitting on a roadside tree. ‘Hm, that was a good case’, the ruminating lawyer throws a beaming smile at his daughter sitting near him. The kid responds with a smile too.

She does not know that that beaming smile of her father is the outward expression of his inner joy at the erroneous notes submitted by the officials to mislead the Medical Commissioner of the Hqrs Office. She also does not know that her father wishes the officials to commit more such blunders. She is fascinated by the pandemonium of parakeets and the flutter of sparrows flying in the sky.

The Ministry of Labour & Employment had reconstituted the “Group responsible for the Labour Code on Social Security & Welfare” two years ago, as per the Letter No. Z-13025/ 13/ 2015 L.R Cell dated 12.03.2015 of the MOL&E.

This group, called as the Drafting Team, had been working for the past two years and has brought out the present ‘draft Labour Code’ which was put in public domain on 16.03.2017 by the MOL&E.

The CPFC had also deputed an RPFC to be part of the Drafting Team “on full time basis for completing the exercise”.

Was the CPFC aware of the what work was being done by the Drafting Team during the period of two years? Was he ever briefed by his RPFO about the direction in which the Drafting Team was going about its work, to finish off the EPFO ?

Lord Yamadharma Raja was taking rounds of the universe. Suddenly, the Lord stumbled upon the letter dated 12.05.2017 of the Ministry of Labour & Employment which explained the modus operandi adopted by the Drafting Team of the Labour Code put out in public domain on 16.03.2017. He was shocked. He immediately ordered Chitragupta to convene an Emergency Session of His House for discussing the issues involved.

The anxious Lord, in a state of shock, rushes for the Emergency Session !

The House is already full, when the Lord arrived there. All the invited participants, brought in both from the otherworld and netherworld, remain assembled there carrying a copy of the MOL&E letter dated 1205.2017 in their hands.

On His being seated, the Lord searches for B.R.Ambedkar and looks at him. Ambedkar rises up and explains his understanding of the letter dated 12.05.2017 of the MOL&E.

Ambedkar: My Lord! I understand the unease of the Lord. I was also shocked on seeing this letter dated 12.05.2017 of the MOL&E and the liberty, allegedly, given to the Drafting Team of the Labour Code. I had been the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution itself. I know for sure that I had never had this kind of liberty to write the Constitution in the manner in which I wanted. The Drafting Committee went about its way on the basis of the Objectives Resolution moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13.12.1946 and adopted unanimously by the Consembly on22.01.1947 (Note **1). There must be some guidelines and specific parameters to be given to every Drafting Committee by the legislature. The Drafting Committee must work within that frame work.

But, the letter of the MOL&E shows that the Drafting Team of the Labour Code had not been given any such legislative guidelines. This Drafting Team had prepared the draft Labour Code without even understanding the fact that it is snatching away the already existing benefits to the working population. What is even more shocking is that the Ministry has come to town with this incomplete draft and are asking the people to explain their stand on it, without telling the people why and where they have made changes, additions, deletions and insertions.

If the team had done its work for bona fide reasons, it would have given appropriate explanatory Notes with reference to each and every section in the draft Labour Code, as foot note on every page, to invite the attention of the readers to understand the modifications done. These are rudimentary principles of legislative drafting. But, the Drafting Team of the Labour Code has not done so. I feel that the manner in which the MOL&E is repeatedly attempting at justifying this slipshod work, shows that the Drafting Team is not at fault. But, there is an invisible force which is driving the Drafting Team to write the draft Labour Code, the way it has been done. Because, left to them, the officers would not venture into such misadventures. They would go by procedures laid down. For, they know they are accountable, otherwise.

Jawaharlal Nehru: Yes, My Lord ! Ambedkar is right. These are rudimentary principles of law making. The Chairman of the 17th Law Commission of India, Mr. Justice. M. Jagannatha Rao, has written a paper on Legislative Drafting. He says, “The draftsman is not the author of the legislative policy, he merely tries to transform the legislative policy into words. The legislative policy is made by the political executive which belongs to the political party which is ruling the legislature or by the monarch who reigns over the country. The draftsman must, therefore, digest the legislative policy fully before he produces the instrument of legislation which can achieve the legislative purpose”. The issue here, with the Labour Code, is why the Drafting Team does not make the concerned ‘legislative policy’ public.

Vallabhbhai Patel: My Lord ! The draft Labour Code is aimed at reducing the benefits already provided to the working population. The party in power, therefore, does not want the people to know the truth. That is why the draft Labour Code has been prepared without explanatory notes. Now, they would propagate and claim that they are ensuring transparency by putting their draft on the website and inviting objections and suggestions. But, they have hidden their intention from being easily known to the public, by not providing explanatory notes for the omissions and commissions. The people behind this draft Labour Code are clever and enjoy their cleverness, tact and tricks. But, they do not have empathy towards the working population. That is definite, as could be seen from the contents of the draft.

Lord: But, the MOL&E refers to the Report of the Second National Commission on Labour and tries to claim that the draft Labour Code is “in line with the recommendations of” that Report. Can’t you treat that Report of the Second National Commission on Labour as the ‘legislative policy’ ?

Patel: We cannot, My Lord! Nowhere in the report of the Second National Commission has it been recommended to reduce the Dependants Benefit from the present 90 % to 50%. Nowhere has it been recommended to stop giving benefits to the employees who sustain Employment injury when they work to meet certain contingencies, as mentioned in Sec. 51-B to Sec. 51-E of the ESI Act, 1948. Nowhere has it been recommended to include an omnibus exemption clause as Sec. 1.8 to enable every employer to get exemption from the entire Labour Code itself. There are many such dangerous provisions in the draft Labour Code. I am certain that these have been inserted only with diabolical intentions to make the ultra-rich people to make money by exploiting the downtrodden segments of the society. The intention behind this Labour Code is mala fide.

Lord: But, the reply of the MOL&E dated 12.05.2017 shows that the “Code is striving for a new concept of ‘Universalising the social security benefits”. How can you say that the intention is mala fide?

Patel: My Lord ! Universalisation of social security benefits was the aim and purpose of the ESI Act, It was specified thus in Sec. 1 (4) of the Act in 1948 itself. But, the progress has to be gradual and the scope for malingering must be negligible. But, without concentrating on running the ESI Scheme corruption-free, the rulers permitted thousands of crores of rupees from the accumulated funds looted, in the name of setting up medical institutions. Construction wing was one are in which rampant corruption was there in the ESIC. Even the CAG had pointed it out in his report No. 40 of 2015. But, the fact was that the CAG has also been cheated that he could not assess the real extent of corrupt activities. What is more? The Ministry of Labour, instead of filing proper counter in the court of law, wants to extricate itself by claiming that implicating the MOL&E and the Cabinet Secretary in the Writ is a case of misjoinder. These incidents would show that the rulers do not have any real concern about the loot of the public money. Their only concern how to help the ultra-rich to make money in the name of insurance by winding up social security measures.

Lord: Yes, the CAG report shows the extent to which the authorities had gone to spirit away the public money. But, how do you say that the rulers want the entry of private players in the field of social security?

Patel: Yes, My Lord! The word PPP used in the presentations on 02.05.2017 and the manner in which Sec. 88.2, Sec. 89.1. Sec. 90 – 93 have been worded, show not only the desire of the rulers to bring in private players but also the willingness of the rules to provide safe escape route to the defaulting private players, if and when they are caught for their misdemeanour. This is a clear case of rulers aligning with the ultra-rich to exploit the poor. The intention behind such loosely worded clauses can never be for bona fide reasons. Moreover, although it is said that 15 laws are amalgamated, the 16th law, the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act has also been brought in. It is only for the purpose of allowing private players to play with social security.

Nehru: My Lord ! The intention is to bring in private players into social security. This is in violation of Art. 41 also. But, the rulers do not care. The pressure from the ultra-rich lobby is not able to be resisted by these rulers. That lobby is not able to provide matching benefits, as given by the ESIC. So, they want to weaken the ESIC and make it vanish. The present day rulers are bending backwards to oblige these private sharks. Instead of working for the welfare of the masses, the present rulers want to make the ultra-rich even richer.

Adharkar: My Lord ! The private players invoke ‘Exclusion Clause’, for Pre-existing diseases. But, the ESIC does not have any such prohibitory clauses. So, the private players and the brokers engaged by them work overtime to wind up the public institutions that provide social security. The result is the present draft Labour Code.

Patel: Yes, My Lord ! The nation knows how the rulers worked against the public institution, the MTNL and the BSNL, to facilitate the private players to succeed in exploiting the nation. The draft Labour Code is also intended to help the private players to make money through the social security path and that will land the nation only in a mess. It will affect the entire nation. This Labour Code is actually going to convert the labour into slave labour. Already, the rulers have made that attempt through the Bill for safety and health of workers. It has enabled the employer to crush the workers to work longer time in the name of overtime. This Labour Code will make the people of the nation suffer to a great extent.

Lord: But, I find from the letter dated 12.05.2017 of the MOL&E that it is only “a preliminary draft for discussion and, therefore, all suggestions are welcome for improving the draft”.

Ambedkar: My Lord ! That is an attempt at cheating the public. Let them publish the legislative policy on which the Drafting Team worked to prepare this draft. Let them publish the draft Labour Code with proper explanatory notes for each and every section where omissions and commissions have been made with reference to the existing statutes. Unless and until they do so, the claim of the MOL&E that they are welcoming suggestions is nothing but a technique to hoodwink the public. The public should not and cannot be expected to find out where this Drafting Team has hidden what, especially when the Drafting Team has hidden so many things at so many places in the draft Labour Code. The very absence of the legislative policy and the explanatory notes in the said Code is an indicator of the mala fide intention of the people who made the Drafting Team to prepare the draft thus.

(Ambedkar takes a long breath and then continues)

My Lord ! The Drafting Team is only a hack. But, it has allowed itself to be a hack unwillingly due to undue influence. I recall that I had, on 04.11. 1948 said in the Parliament of India, “I hope the Drafting Committee will be found to have faithfully carried out the directions given to it” (Note **2) . Saadullah, another member of the Drafting Committee said, “We were merely to dress up the Objectives Resolution. How can 7 members thrust their opinions on 308?” (Note **3).

(Ambedkar takes another long breath again and continues)

And I remember the discussion in the Parliament on 02.09.1953, when I advocated the carving out of Andhra Pradesh and condemned the manner in which Potti Sriramulu was driven to death for that. At that time, I said, “My answer is that I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did against my will” (Note **4).

Again on 19.03.2015, I said, “I and the Drafting Committee take no responsibility for that. It is not our draft” (Note **5). But, My Lord, the Drafting Team of the Labour Code, according to the MOL&E, has done everything on its own, without ny legislative policy even.

Lord: Oh ! What a power to the Drafting Team of the Labour Code !! You say you did not enjoy any such power while drafting the Constitution itself !! Can we say that the Indian democracy has progressed to such an extent that it devolves unlimited powers to Drafting Teams?

Adharkar: My Lord ! It shows their progress in enacting regressive laws. The mala fide intention is explicit, My Lord! The extent of liability of contribution has been shifted from subordinate legislation [ESI (Central) Rules, 1950] to the primary legislation, the Labour Code itself. But, the benefit provisions assured in the primary legislation (Sec. 51-B to 51-E of the ESI Act, 1948) have been made to vanish. The MOL&E cannot defend itself saying that they would provide for more, through their proposed subordinate legislations like Schemes, Rules, Regulations and Licences, than what is available now to the working population.

Patel: What is even more shocking is the manner in which both the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 have been allowed to remain in a single statute. That certainly is a regressive method of enacting law for the welfare of the working class. The employees will be allowed to choose between either. That will not be in the interest of workforce.

(A hand is rising in the crowd. The Lord looks in that direction. It was Golwalkar who raised his hand. The Lord nods at him.).

Golwalker: My Lord ! The information conveyed through the letter of the MOL&E letters dated 24.04.2017 and 12.05.2017 is not true. The Drafting Team must have had a specific and concrete legislative policy. But, that is a secret document. The officers, otherwise, would not have ventured (i) to reduce the established benefits, (2) to bring in private players in the name of Intermediate Agencies, (3) to drop the word ‘substantially’ in the sly, (4) to insert provisions for subsidy to employers, (5) to provide for escape route to fraudulent private players through weak punishing mechanism, etc., Five officials drafted for the work on 12.03.2015 cannot be said to have invented a totally new system.

Hedgewar: Yes, My Lord! There must have been specific direction given to the Drafting Team regarding the direction in which it should move. Most probably, the direction was to combine all the 15 welfare legislations and make a mess of it in such a way the people do not understand how private players are going to be benefitted at the cost of the workers. That must alone have been the direction given to the team.

Ambedkar; Yes, it must have been only like that. But, that was not the legislative policy, My Lord! There is no such document physically available.

Patel: My Lord! The present set of rulers are more interested in social re-engineering than in the welfare of workforce. That is why they meddle with Labour Laws to make them nothing. That is why they pretend that they do not have any legislative policy. This Labour Code, is projected by the MOL&E as the brainchild of five officers in the Drafting Team. No team of officers would venture thus. Moreover, this Labour Code is nothing but a recipe for disaster. It will not bring in Social Security but only social unrest. Earlier, in April, 2016, without any objective outlook, these rulers brought in a legislation to amend the EPF provisions. That resulted in the masses rising up in a leaderless protest. The rulers beat a hasty retreat, immediately. Now, they want to reduce the benefits even more. They are not responsive or accommodative or sympathetic to the working population. They are driven by the ultra-rich businessmen and are ready to placate them by going to any extent.

Note **1: The Constituent Assembly met for the first time on 09.12.1946. All the members were present. On 13.12.1946, Jawaharlal Nehru moved the Objectives Resolution in the First Session that ended on 23.12.1946. The Objectives Resolution was unanimously adopted by the Consembly on 22.01.1947 in the Second Session that started on 20.01.1947. The progress got affected because of the partition plan in June 1947. But, the Objectives Resolution remained as it was. And it was on On 29.08.1947, the Constituent Assembly set up a Drafting Committee under the Chairmanship of B.R. Ambedkar to prepare a Draft Constitution for India. The Drafting Committee went about its mission on the basis of the said Objectives Resolution and the discussions and resolutions in the Constituent Assembly during the period between 09.12.1946 and the discussions in the four, technically five) sessions of the Consembly that preceded the setting up the Drafting Committee. This Objectives Resolution defined the parameters within which the Constitution that was to be drafted should be prepared.

Another reply from the Ministry of Labour is available. The reply received from the Ministry in their letter No. M. 13014 / 01/ 2017 – LRC dated 12.05.2017 is in reply to the application dated 19.04.2017 sent under the RTI Act which is available in the following link:

If the contents of this letter are true, it would imply that the entire draft Labour Code is the handy work of some bureaucrats who had taken unlimited liberty with the time-tested labour laws and have made a mincemeat of them through the draft Labour Code.

What is more, they do not know what their ultimate aim is but have attempted to write something as Labour Code and create unnecessary social unrest in the nation.

The ILO had, in its ‘World Social Security Report’ released on 16.11.2010 said that there were many “informal labour practices” in India and that the people of India are exposed to “very high vulnerability” to poverty.

The Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi has, during the “Consultation Workshop”held on 02.05.2017, said that the draft Labour Code put in public domain on 16.03.2017, was “the outcome of prolonged discussions with the ILO and ISSA experts”.

When the name of the ILO is used thus, by the Secretary of the MOL & E to justify a controversial Labour Code, people do have the right to know whether the ILO is really aware of the contents and the substance of the Labour Code.